The Supermajority Voting Requirement Explanation:

1) There's an inherent conundrum for people in addressing an issue that benefits them but is factually flawed (especially when fixing it could be disadvantageous to them). Which one takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?...

The benefit a simple majority provides, of aiding in the achievement of a desired result (levy passage), does not change the "mathematically indisputable fact" that it's a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. The simple majority voting examples I give here are totally accurate but might be easier to get through with a calculator to verify the figures accuracy and help with the understanding of it.

2) To continue a disagreement as to the need for a supermajority, after going through and understanding the mathematical reasons in the above link, is to argue that it would make perfect sense to allow Idaho residents to vote with us irt raising our WA state sales tax with a "simple" majority vote. In actuality, a supermajority would not only be wanted, it would in fact be a necessity, iot achieve a more fair vote. This would once again be due to allowing a group of people (Idaho residents in this case) to vote for something "they benefit from" yet "don't have to pay for". Exactly what occurs with a simple majority property levy vote.

How could anyone seriously/honestly believe that passing a 12% sales tax on WA residents (due to the influence of ID voters), when only 29-38% of WA voters approved it, would make sense or seem fair/democratic...? Yet that's exactly what could happen if a simple majority was used. It's a perfect example of where a "simple" majority would be a flawed vote (as it is with property levies). The mathematical evidence is unquestionable, and a bit silly to argue (unless the math aspect just isn't understood). I've tried to provide simple examples but you can't force someone to "accept" the truth, you can only "provide" the truth.

*****To clarify, the "simple" majority is the absolute correct vote in "most" situations (everyone voting pays & benefits equally: President, Govenor, Statewide taxes, etc.) but is flawed when used in situations where a group of people are allowed to vote for something they don't have to pay for even though they enjoy benefits from it (like property levy votes). This brings back the question irt these votes: Which one takes priority, personal benefit (simple majority) or truth & correctness (supermajority)?...

3) Irt the argument that it takes more yes votes to counter no votes and that it somehow is less democratic: A supermajority actually makes the vote "more" democratic in these types of votes. The idea it takes more yes votes to counter no votes is correct (although not necessarily 2-1) and is the exact and necessary intent of supermajority votes. ((You'd want it that way in order to account for the yes votes from the Idaho residents voting yes to raise your WA state sales tax in the above analogy and the reasons are just as justified in the case of property levies. The basic mathematics of the problem show it to be 100% true in both cases.))

The unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of people don't have an actual understanding of the mathematical "why/how" reasons that a supermajority is required in certain situations (property levy votes are, in fact, one of those situations). With a better understanding, the law would have never been reversed and we would still have a super majority requirement (especially given that HJR4204 passed by "less than" 1%).

4) BTW: The argument that "renters pay levy taxes via rent" is "ridiculously simplistic" because only in a perfectly linked, utopian, system would this be the case. In actuality, landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Meaning, if a landlord can't get a renter at a price that covers the costs of the levy, he/she has to lower the rent, "eating" the expense, in order "to simply rent the unit out and avoid a vacancy".

5) ----As a side note, a vote "to change" a current voting requirement should always require thecurrent standard iot change that standard (no matter what the vote deals with). In other words, going "from" a simple standard should require a simple majority to change it. Likewise, going "from" a supermajority standard should require a supermajority to change. It defies basic logic, mathematics, and common sense that a "lesser" requirement would be used to "get around a stricter requirement" that was seen, by a select group, as "a pesky rule" preventing their ballot items from passing.----

The solutions are either:

1) Requiring a 60% Super Majority to pass property tax issues
2) Allowing only levy payers to vote on those measures...

3) A sales tax with total revenue evenly distributed on a per student basis would be a much more equitable solution (everyone pays in) and would also remove the disadvantage that can occur in lower property value school districts. Net-net the schools would still get their money, but in a much more fair way.

--->Once again, the conundrum: The benefit a simple majority provides of aiding in the achievement of your desired result (levy passage), does not change the "mathematically indisputable fact" that it's a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. So which takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?...

Examples proving the mathematical necessity of the Supermajority in specific situations:

This post provides mathematical examples proving why/when a supermajority is necessary. It expands on the basic explanation of supermajority requirements here and uses property levy examples (which are a type of vote that needs a supermajority).

A supermajority vote is necessary anytime you allow a subset group of people to vote on a matter that's beneficial to them but they don't pay for.

--Abbreviations used: Levy Payer (LP), Non-Levy Payer (NLP)

--Colors (occasionally used): Blue for LP items /Red for NLP items

--Assumptions used: 100 people vote

1) If all 100 voters are LPs: The vote should require 51 votes to pass (The basic Simple Majority).

2) However, if the 100 are split we discover that the vote needs to be a supermajority. Here's why (using 55 LPs & 45 NLPs):

To get the simple majority of LPs you need at least 28/55 of them. The problem is that with the introduction of the 45 NLPs voters, you've created a flawed vote. Flawed because you could get passage with 5 LPs (a far cry from the 28) and 45 NLPs voting yes (5+45=50). That would be passing a tax with only 9% (5/55) support from the LPs who'd actually pay the tax! If NLPs voted yes by 85% (.85x45=38), the levy could still pass with a meager approval rate from LPs of 21% (.21x55=12)...(38+12=50).

Obviously a 100% (45/45) NLP voting rate is extreme, and 85% would be quite high, but the mere fact it's a possibility shows the flaw. However, a very realistic 75% (34/45) of NLPs would cause passage with a mere 31%(17/55) LPs approval rate (still extremely unfair). Obviously, passing a tax on people, when only 31% approved it, is a flawed system. By no means is that an "extreme" example. High approval rates are much more common among people who benefit from, but don't pay for, something. Even using 65% (29/45) NLPs you find that "a minority" 38% (21/55) of LPs still results in the tax being passed upon them. How could anyone support a belief that it's ok to pass a tax on people when only 38% of them actually voted for it? How could that be seen as fair/democratic?

3) How about this: If Washington was having a vote to increase the sales tax to 12% you surely would not want people from Idaho/Oregon allowed to vote on it. If they "were" allowed to participate, you'd want a "supermajority vote" because, as stated above, you'd be adding a subset of voters who wouldn't pay the extra tax but would benefit nonetheless (as people crossed the border to avoid the increase). Wouldn't you be a little upset if that 12% tax passed with only 21-38% support of actual WA state voters? Would you think that was "democratic"...? Remember, the mere fact that it's possible shows the flaw (and these aren't even unrealistic voting figures).

4) To correct this problem: Using the same 100 people example, you start by accounting for the baseline premise of wanting at least a 50% (simple majority) approval rate among the actual "LPs" (WA residents in above example) who pay the tax (.5x55=28). Now, you simply make an educated estimate of the "NLP" yes voting rate. Again, a higher yes rate is perfectly logical/normal when people vote for something they benefit from but don't pay for (especially with all the exploitative "for the kids" ads)... Using the 75% rate (from above) we get (.75x45=34). Adding 28+34 yields 62 votes required (a supermajority 62%). The worst case scenario of 45 NLPs voting yes results in 28+45=73% required to pass with at least a "simple majority" of 28 LPs.

Even though 60% is less than the above 62% & 73% figures it still represents a good all around happy medium figure to be used in these types of situations (subset introduced into equation) and it's a heck of a lot better than the simple majority rule that was swindled in 2007's HJR4204 (passing w/less than 1% of vote). A vote that most likely wouldn't have passed if people had a better understanding of the mathematical reasons necessitating a supermajority...

Again, it's basic mathematics that shows why a supermajority vote is required in order to simply even out the vote and account for the addition of a group of voters who don't have to pay for the very thing they're voting for.

****If a levy passes by 60% there's a good chance it would've also passed with a simple majority vote consisting of only LPs (demonstrated by the 28 in above paragraph). Therefore, the tax could be seen as resulting from a legitimate vote. However, any that pass with less than a supermajority are mathematically flawed voting results. It's quite different from being seen as emotionally flawed when an item someone favor fails.

The solutions are either:

1) Requiring a 60% Super Majority to pass property tax issues
2) Allowing only levy payers to vote on those measures...

3) A sales tax with total revenue evenly distributed on a per student basis would be a much more equitable solution (everyone pays in) and would also remove the disadvantage that can occur in lower property value school districts. Net-net the schools would still get their money, but in a much more fair way.

5) There's an inherent conundrum for people in addressing an issue that benefits them but is factually flawed (especially when fixing it could be disadvantageous to them). Which one takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?... The benefit a simple majority provides of aiding in the achievement of a desired result (levy passage), does not change the "mathematically indisputable fact" that it's a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. So again, which takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?...

Enough backdoor tactics when changing voting requirements!!!

----A vote "to change" a current voting requirement should always require the current standard iot change that standard (no matter what the vote deals with). In other words, going "from" a simple majority standard should require a simple majority to change it. Likewise, going "from" a supermajority standard should require a supermajority to change it. It defies basic logic, mathematics, and common sense that a "lesser" requirement would be used to "get around a stricter requirement". Yet, that's exactly what happened when a group of people successfully used this unscrupulous tactic to pass HJR 4204 in order to get around what they viewed as "a pesky rule" preventing their ballot items from passing.----

Same Sex Marriage in WA and Nationally

It's pretty much a certainty that the enough petition signatures will be gathered to put the issue to a vote. However, if a successful Constitutional case is made, it "may" not go to a public vote. Here are my general thoughts on the topic: 1. It's extremely hypocritical for people who rail about keeping gov't out of their lives (in a "don't tread on me" sort of way) to then argue that "they want" gov't (as long as it's in someone else's life). The domestic partnership law still denies partners of many things that other married couples enjoy like the ability to file married filling jointly as one example. Others argue that a state ruling doesn't change that so it doesn't relate. What? Obviously it will be easier to address at the federal level after more and more states pass these laws. Eventually it will be the case so let's just get there already. 2. Irt the arguments I've heard that marriage is about encouraging "reproduction of the species": A hundred yrs ago this was more of a valid point because sex, let alone having children, out of wedlock was condemned such that most people took many dates before even holding hands or kissing. Until "relatively" recently, not many children were being born without a marriage to kick things off. A decline in the marriage rate (down from 72% in 1960 to 51% in 2010) shows this has been changing. In many ways we'd be better off going more in that direction (i.e. slowing down a bit) but if we take a realistic view of things (TV shows glamorizing teen pregnancy, celebrities having kids & remaining unmarried, increased sexuality in TV & movies, etc.) it's obvious that's not going to happen. 3. Irt comments about religious beliefs: Allowing same sex marriages at the state/federal level doesn't impact churches in the least so introducing particular religious beliefs to the argument simply distracts from the underlying issue of equality. We have a long time tradition of freedom to practice your religion but not freedom to force your religion’s beliefs on those who don’t subscribe to them. Furthermore, a given church/religion doesn't have to recognize the marriage or do the service if it doesn't want to. Therefore, if someone wants to be legally (state/federal) recognized as being married, they should be allowed to do so without people unleashing such furor. 4. All that being said, I also believe there's a DNA issue that influences people being homosexual. By no means does that mean I'm saying homosexuals are bad people (in the same way people predisposed to other genetic issues aren't bad people). I believe the feelings come just as natural as those felt by heterosexuals (due to the DNA coding that impacts how people feel). I think we're less than a generation from isolating the area of DNA that leads to homosexual feelings and being able to "treat" it. When that occurs, the dilemma will become do we address the DNA issue (like we'll be able to do to other DNA issues) while someone is a baby, or would that be seen as making decisions for someone who may not want "to be changed" (which is a tricky concept). The trickiness will be that if we know the feelings of not wanting to be changed will exist later in life (due to the very genetic coding issue to be treated), then would it make sense to "wait" till they were older (16 for example) to "ask" them what we already know their DNA will be telling them feels natural. On the other hand that same person would say heterosexual feelings felt natural (at the same example age) "if" a DNA treatment (causing heterosexual feelings to dominate) had been administered to him/her when they were a baby. It will be interesting for sure.

Wake up WA State voters; you're property taxes can be UNFAIRLY raised now!!

-

Revisiting an old salty wound in the unjust category:

It was certainly a "backdoor" manner in which HJR 4204 reversed the "supermajority vote" requirement for raising property taxes. How can you vote to change a supermajority requirement using a vote that only requires a “simple majority”?! It would've been perfectly reasonable/acceptable if a supermajority vote had been used to overturn the supermajority requirement but being able to use the “lower” (simple majority) requirement to change the "higher" requirement should seem seriously wrong to all voters.

It boils down to a flawed loophole that allows for "all" amendments to the constitution to need a simple majority vote (without regard to what the amendment actually changes). I.e. the law fails to take into account the rare times that a vote would actually be dealing with a change that impacts an established voting "percentage" requirement as opposed to an amendment that had nothing to do with voting percentages. This needs to be addressed as well.

A big reason it "passed" (cough, cough) is simply because 1) so many people voting for it knew they weren't directly impacted (i.e. renters and people living with relatives) by property tax school levies and they just like "the idea" of their schools getting more money and 2) An innocent mistake whereas many people don't understand why (in certain situations) a supermajority should be required iot make it a truly fair vote. In fact, ANY vote that allows people to participate who aren't directly impacted (financially) should require a supermajority in order to simply help to make up for allowing a large number of people to vote for something (like property tax levies) who are aren't even affected by it (i.e. non property owners voting to raise taxes on someone else). However, if property owners were the only people allowed to vote on issues related to property taxes then a simple majority vote would be perfectly appropriate and fair.

**To the people who voted for 4204: It's like saying it would be alright to let the residents of Oregon vote alongside WA residents on a piece of legislation to raise Washington's sales tax to 12% and using a simple majority vote to do it. I doubt they'd be ok with that...


Read on if you're interested in an expanded explanation of why the supermajority vote is necessary to make it a "fair" vote...
---------------------------------------------------------

Examples: Assume 100 people are voting on a tax tied to property values:
--Abbreviations & colors used below: Levy Payer (LP), Non-Levy Payer (NLP)

1) "If" all 100 are LPs= The vote should require 51 votes to pass (The basic Simple Majority).

2) However, if the 100 consisted of 55 LPs & 45 NLPs the vote needs to be a supermajority. Here's why: To get a simple majority of LPs you need at least 28 to vote for the tax (28/55). The problem is that with the introduction of the 45 NLP voters, who aren't directly impacted, you've created a flawed vote. Flawed because you could get passage with as little as 6 LPs and 45NLPs voting yes (6+45=51%). That would pass the tax with only 11% (6/55=11%) support from the people who'd actually pay the tax!

Obviously a 100% (45/45) NLP voting rate is extreme but the mere fact it's a possibility shows the flaw. How about a very realistic 75% (34/45) of NLPs which would require only 31% (17/55) LPs to be passed (still extremely unfair). Obviously, passing a tax on people, when only 31% approved it, is a flawed system. Even using 64% (29/45) of NLPs you see that "a minority" 40% (22/55) of LPs still results in the tax being passed upon them.

3) The simple offset to correct this problem is to start with the baseline premise that at least a simple majority of LPs is required for passage. That means you need at least 28/55 PTPs to pass. Then, you simply have to make an educated estimate of the yes votes by NLPs. Again, it's perfectly logical that people are more likely to vote for a tax they get benefits from but don't pay for so using a potential rate of 70-80% is quite realistic. Using 75% produces .75x45=34 NLP yes votes. Recall, the premise dictates a simple majority of LPs is required for passage (28/55). Adding those figures yields 34+28=62 votes required. That equates to a 62% (62/100) vote requirement (which is a supermajority).

Adding more NLPs to the equation (&/or increasing their potential yes votes) would cause that required supermajority requirement of 62% to "potentially" go as high as 73% as follows: 45NLPs voting yes + the same 28 ("simple" majority of LPs) from above yields 45+28=73 votes (73/100= 73%). Using a 60% supermajority rule still wouldn't protect LPs in this example BUT it's a heck of a lot better than the simple majority rule that was "swindled" in 2007's HJR4204...

We should bring back equality by either:
1) Requiring a Super Majority to pass property tax issues "OR"
2) Allowing only property owners to vote on those measures... The other option is to just fund all schools by sales tax revenue (because everyone pays sales tax).
Net-net the schools would still get their money, but in a much more fair way (property owners would see their portion of the funding go down slightly while non-property owners would actually start paying a portion...)

4) By The Way: Contrary to uninformed viewpoints, renters do not always see their rents go up by the same amount landlords property taxes are increased. In a Utopian world that might be the case but "in the real world" landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Raising rent on a vacant property, or raising it such that it causes a vacancy, isn't a very sustainable business plan now is it? The property owner basically has to "eat" the additional expense in the same way a business experiences profit margin erosion when they can't pass along all their input cost increases for various reasons.

Let’s reverse 4204 and make these votes fair again!

When is paying out bonuses warranted?

Teams win and loose together. The worst player on the Steelers still received a championship ring while the best players on the Cardinals still didn't. Similarly, The workers on the few auto production lines that actually still have "decent" sales are suffering along with all the other employees that worked on the worst production lines, right? Regardless of a business having 10 or 10K employees, a bonus is supposed to be something that can be given out when the business is doing well and is therefore paid is from profits. Paying extras out when you're losing money isn't a very good business model.

A clear distinction should be made between a company that needed a bailout and one that did not. If the only reason you're still a solvent company is due to govt funds, "your bonus" is the fact that you still have a job because without the govt money you wouldn't have been receiving "a paycheck" (let alone a bonus) throughout the end of last yr and even currently... However, if you didn't need a bailout then pay out whatever you want (even though it's wrong to pay a bonus when you're not profitable). A good argument can be made against the bonuses that were paid in the yrs that excessive leverage and bad decisions were creating "false profits" as well (i.e. the claw back debate) but for this that's another conversation.

Obama's "Bottom up" vs. "Top down" stimulus?

Realistically, it's just as easy to argue for bottom up as it is for top down. People like to argue both sides of but it's sort of like the chicken & the egg argument and in reality we need both.

Bottom Up- Stimulating the lower 90 percentile (where most people reside) generates spending which equates to demand. That demand influences co's to hire more people and increase expenditures on growth and innovation. This can work tremendously well under the right circumstances when people are spending any extra money you give them. However, it won't work very well, if at all, when people are saving too much of what they're given due to a lack of consumer confidence. When this occurs, demand doesn't pick up and most companies won't increase spending or hiring. This is where we are now and why the January bottom up stimulus doesn't look promising for creating a timely economic recovery. People are just going to keep the extra money they get as a rebate and in their paychecks... People will spend less of their 09' rebate checks than they did with their 08' rebates and that's not good (for the economy at least). Yes, it's good for people to increase their savings from a personal budget point of view but if we're ever going to repay our increasing debt obligations we need to increase revenue. That's done with an expanding economy and we need that sooner than later.

Top Dn- Stimulating the top with tax breaks, credits, etc. can encourage companies to invest in growth & innovation which can create jobs and thus generate income that can be spent in the economy. However, "most" companies won't make those expenditures when there's no visible demand from the bottom. Some companies do spend when things look a little bleak because they believe they'll be better prepared for the eventual recovery. Currently, fewer companies are willing to do this because they realize people aren't going to be spending as much and there's a fear that this recession could last longer than a typical one.

--> Unfortunately, the stimulus package passed in Jan had too much bottom up and not enough top down. You have to blame whichever party is in charge for this happening and right now that's the democrats (led by Pelosi). They really needed to add more top down stimulus to balance the package and make it successful but they allowed the political "axe to grind" politics get in the way of doing what was needed for America. The republicans have done similar "axe grinding" things in the past but with what's at stake it sure would've been nice to see "SOMEONE" be the bigger person... Is Pelosi "really" the best person that could be picked to be "the leader”…? Good grief